Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

PBS NewsHour “Then” Edition with Kevin Hassett

Kevin Hassett (chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers) talking to PBS NewsHour:

“Federal workers who are without pay as the government shutdown drags on actually have it pretty good.

A huge share of government workers were gonna to take vacation days, say, between Christmas and New Year’s. And then we have a shutdown, and so they can’t go to work, and so then they have the vacation, but they don’t have to use their vacation days. And then they come back, and then they get their back pay. Then they’re, in some sense they’re better off.”

Tags: , Comments (7) | |

District Federal Court Rips Administration on Census

I have had enough court time to last a life time. While mine was not fun and it was a battle, this I find hilarious. It is a well placed shot across the bow of someone who believes they are impervious to society, the courts, and morality.

The census case arrived in front of Manhattan District Federal Judge Furman requesting that he delay proceedings. Calling it the ‘latest and strangest effort’ in its crusade to delay proceedings in the case. He said what made the request ‘most puzzling, if not sanctionable’ is that the Trump administration had made a similar request before the trial started, and had been rejected by not only the district court judge, but by an appeals court and the Supreme Court.

Furman pointed out, “when the Supreme Court announced last week it was taking up the case, “it knew that this Court had completed trial, and it presumably expected that the Court would enter final judgment before the date that it set for oral argument.”

Bashing the administration for taking its request to an appeals court before he had a chance to rule on it. The appeals court again denied that request as premature.

“If Defendants’ motion in this Court comes close to the sanctionable line, that filing would sure seem to cross it,” Furman wrote in his order.”

Other quotable quotes?

– “Unless burdening Plaintiffs and the federal courts with make-work is a feature of Defendants’ litigation strategy, as opposed to a bug, it is hard to see the point. To borrow from Camus, “[o]ne must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

– “Tellingly, this time, Defendants do not even attempt to argue that they are entitled to the extraordinary relief of a stay of all proceedings under the traditional factors…In fact, the words ‘harm” and ‘injury’ do not appear anywhere in their motion. That is for good reason, as the notion that they — or anyone else — would suffer ‘irreparable harm’ without a stay is laughable.”

– “Defendants’ motion makes so little sense, even on its own terms, that it is hard to understand as anything but an attempt to avoid a timely decision on the merits altogether.

– “Enough is enough.”

State of New York vs US Department of Commerce

Tags: , Comments (1) | |

John Roberts Introduces a New Favorite Tactic This Term: Sleights-of-Hand Analogies

Roberts suggested that he believes Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood can bring forth claims of religious freedom, saying courts have held that “corporations can bring racial discrimination claims as corporations” and that “those cases involve construction of the term ‘person.’”

John Roberts Offers Conservatives A Way Out Of Birth Control Dilemma, Sahil Kapur, TPM, Mar. 26

About which I wrote a post here the next day titled: “Turns out Alito isn’t the only justice who conflates the Securities Exchange Act with state-law corporate-structure statutes.  Roberts does, too!  (Unless, that is, racial-minority-owned corporations are denied access to restaurants and hotels when traveling.  Or something.)

Yep. Unless, that is, racial-minority-owned corporations are denied access to restaurants and hotels when traveling.  Or something.

What I was referring to was this, from that post of  Kapur’s about the argument on Mar. 26 in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, the two consolidated cases challenging as violative of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause the ACA’s employer contraceptive-coverage mandate, in which a threshold issue is whether corporations can exercise religion and therefore are “persons” within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

After observing that “eight courts of appeals, every court of appeal to have looked at the situation have held that corporations can bring racial discrimination claims as corporations,” the Chief Justice asked:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (2) | |

Turns out Alito isn’t the only justice who conflates the Securities Exchange Act with state-law corporate-structure statutes. Roberts does, too! (Unless, that is, racial-minority-owned corporations are denied access to restaurants and hotels when traveling. Or something.)

Roberts suggested that he believes Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood can bring forth claims of religious freedom, saying courts have held that “corporations can bring racial discrimination claims as corporations” and that “those cases involve construction of the term ‘person.'”

John Roberts Offers Conservatives A Way Out Of Birth Control Dilemma, Sahil Kapur, TPM, yesterday

Late Tuesday afternoon, after I’d read two or three early reports on the argument at the Supreme Court that morning in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases, I posted a piece here titled:

“My early take on the ACA-contraception-mandate-case argument: Alito conflates the Securities Exchange Act with state-law corporate-structure statutes (yikes); Kennedy really, really wants to give corporations the full complement of human constitutional rights; and Scalia really, really needs to limit this ruling to an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

That post harked back to one I’d posted the day before about what to look for in the upcoming argument.  What to look for, I said? Mainly whether “the court will back away somewhat from its Citizens United claim that corporate CEOs can, in the name of the corporation, access the constitutional rights of citizen-association members.”  I predicted that it would–that the Court “will find some way to segregate speech rights from other constitutional rights, and will rule against the plaintiffs in these two cases.” I wrote:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (8) | |